After nearly two weeks of the Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial, sardonically referred to in some circles as ‘Base Canard II’, the terms of recent vogue in military history will have to be pressed into service as description of the tactics deployed by both the prosecution and defence.

‘Shock and awe’, a phrase employed by a superpower as code for the pyrotechnical brilliance of their military campaign, nicely describes the prosecution’s tactics.

NONE Their star witness, Saiful Bukhari Azlan, made a shocking claim on the overture to his alleged degradation before segueing into the startling revelation that he was constipated for some days thereafter.

But then he said he idolised his alleged sodomiser.

Additionally, he claimed that the alleged experience of violation had him revolted enough to want to quit as aide and factotum to Anwar Ibrahim.

The speculative theories abound.

However, there can be little room for the speculative in the tactics of the defence. Theirs is a ‘scorched earth’ policy: if they yield ground, they take no prisoners.

Their attempt to have the judge disqualified reflects this strategy. A ruling will be made on its application on Feb 18.

The defence’s gravamen concerns judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah’s earlier dismissal of their application to cite the Umno-owned paper, Utusan Malaysia, for contempt of court for its report on a visit by court officials to the condominium where the alleged sodomy is said to have taken place.

The matter will turn on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the judge’s representation of what the Utusan report contained with respect to what was said in open court, as distinct from what was revealed in camera.

The notes of proceedings are the filter by which this issue is to be adjudicated.

The ‘Azizan’ moment

If the judge’s representation was accurate, he is deemed to be above board vis-à-vis the defence’s imputation of bias.

Otherwise, a plausible case of bias and consequential disqualification to continue hearing the case would be made against him.

This is the ‘Azizan moment’ in Sodomy II.

NONE Azizan Abu Bakar was the driver of Anwar’s wife who alleged in Sodomy I that he was sodomised by the then deputy premier. The trial was held more than 10 years ago

Under rigorous cross-examination by defence counsel, the late Christopher Fernando, Azizan sensationally admitted that the incident of sodomy did not occur.

However, under re-examination by prosecuting counsel, Azizan retracted this testimony and reverted to the status quo ante, which was that he was sodomised.

After that, in the courtroom of public opinion, the case of Sodomy I was effectively dead in the water.

However, judicial exoneration of Anwar would only come, on protracted appeal, in August 2004, after he had served some six years in prison.

The ‘Azizan moment’ – the point where the contending imperatives of justice and of politics meet in an almost palpable tension – has arrived in this case rather early.

It might be a preternatural sign of general déjà vu with the entire topic.